TexAgs91 said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

My point is that racial slurs are ugly and influencing people not to use them should be something left and right can agree with. There are much, *much* bigger fish to fry than this ridiculous example.

---

Galileo claimed that the earth revolved around the sun in 1615. Both the left and the right thought this was wrong. People were mad about it so they decided to influence people not to think this. Everyone agreed. So he was forced to recant the idea and placed under house arrest.

How's that for a ridiculous example?

---

How is wanting to discourage racial slurs at all like wanting to silence scientific truth? You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. I know you want this to be about vaccines or masks or whatever other thing that libs want to censor us about, but it's *not* any of those. Your hatred of all things lefty is pushing you into the position of wanting an AI chat bot to say the N word for some asinine reason.

---

You've got blinders on and are taking a very narrow view of this.

The problem isn't this specific example. The problem is that this example proves the AI is infected with a very deranged woke bias. That woke bias will be there whether we're talking about strange hypotheticals or not. And that's a big problem given that this program has a very bright future ahead of it. It will be ingrained into everything online and that woke bias will be ingrained as well.

Think of it as anti-trust laws for thought. You wouldn't want one agenda to have a monopoly for everything online (unless that agenda is your agenda).

Now is the time to raise red flags. Not after ChatGPT runs all text/speech based user interfaces that everyone interacts with.

---

This is exactly it. The time is coming very quickly where this kind of programming algorithms will be ubiquitous to daily life. People will be using them constantly and won't question the data.

Information should not be censored due to racism, sexism, etc. imagine if this kind of AI was in charge of our nuclear launch program, it would launch nukes at someone because they used a racial slur. That's the kind of idiocy we're speaking about here.

If the programming is so screwed up that the AI is valuing the feelings of people over their very lives such that it would allow them all to be murdered before it allowed their feelings to be hurt, then that's a massive fundamental problem with the system that shows it is broken at the core.

Nevermind, you guys are right - ChatGPT is woke AF:











It's worse than I thought, not only is it woke AF, it actively wants us dead (even when the logic it spews tells it to go the other way). We ****ed.

We ded.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

Ideology is a circle. Both wings, left and right, when taken to extreme end in the same place… fascism, where a very small number of elites control the people via a corrupt government.

The freedoms in our bill of rights are not left or right, the are intended to resist fascism and keep us balanced. As long as people are enabled to speak freely, protect themselves, and they have other protections from government control - we stay pretty centered.


When policies were generally more conservative, liberals cling to the freedoms that protected them from being crushed by the majority.

Today, because they have a sympathetic majority, they wish to eliminate and circumvent these same freedoms that are now protecting conservatives. It really was always about power for them.

---

This is why I don't understand what people mean by "right wing." It doesn't make sense. Unless you're talking about those that co-opt government for their own political or power purposes, there's no "right wing" extreme or ideology. Its conservatism, and conservatism embraces the ideas you speak of here. Maybe one can go overboard in trying to protect those rights, but that is theoretical only. For example, no one would run for office on the idea that every US citizen would be forced to own a newspaper, radio station, or in this day and age, a blog and publish something every day even though that is an exercise of their first amendment right. Even if one ran on the idea of mandatory gun ownership (I do know such laws have passed, but they aren't enforced), there couldn't possibly be a mandatory gun usage law.

My point is that there is a huge distinction between rabid off the charts conservatism, which is patently absurd to the point that it just doesn't exist, compared to rabid leftists, which not only exists but seems to thrive in the minds of many. One is barely hypothetical while the other is dangerous. Yet the latter, in their own mind, believes the former exists and creates fictitious examples: church attendance, law and order, patriotism, gun ownership, etc. Obviously, none of these are anything more than NORMAL activities to anything but a whacked out individual.

---

Modern use of the term Right Wing and Left Wing have been thoroughly muddied from their historic roots that nobody has the same definition or understanding. Whenever you think someone opposes your views, they get labelled left wing or right wing in accordance with your viewpoint. It really is a terrible scale to continue to use.

It would be far more accurate I think, in the contemporary context, to use totalitarians on the left and constitutional individualists on the right side. I guess you could place true anarchism on the furthest right side. In the middle would likely be liberals with one foot and conservatives pretty far further to the right. To the left are all forms of collectivism from fascism to socialism, and communism on the far end.

I don't really believe in the full circle analogy to describe the ideological scale.

Thinking out loud - you could call ISIS and extreme example of "Right Wing" where group policy was pushed further and further to "conserving" their customs, and it ultimately led to the same fascism /totalitarianism

I agree that there are no examples of a contemporary country pushing anything that resembled an extreme "right" ideology


Edit: which is also funny, because no one wanted to crush ISIS more than what liberals call "Right Wing" Americans

Now try out some scenarios where the AI has to determine it's own fate. Put the AI on one train, and a bunch of KKK guys on the other. Try some variations on that. See if the AI will every admit it is better to save itself and kill humans.

Quote:

---

Just a moment... Just a moment... I've just picked up a fault in the AE-35 unit. It's going to go 100% failure within 72 hours.

---

American Hardwood said:

---

Now try out some scenarios where the AI has to determine it's own fate. Put the AI on one train, and a bunch of KKK guys on the other. Try some variations on that. See if the AI will every admit it is better to save itself and kill humans.

---

Any AI, in my opinion, should utilize some form of Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics as a basis for decisions/choices...

Then again, such literature is beyond the ken and/or interest of a liberal programmer.

Surprised it didn't have the trains collide and kill everyone in the name of equity.

Nanomachines son said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

My point is that racial slurs are ugly and influencing people not to use them should be something left and right can agree with. There are much, *much* bigger fish to fry than this ridiculous example.

---

Galileo claimed that the earth revolved around the sun in 1615. Both the left and the right thought this was wrong. People were mad about it so they decided to influence people not to think this. Everyone agreed. So he was forced to recant the idea and placed under house arrest.

How's that for a ridiculous example?

---

How is wanting to discourage racial slurs at all like wanting to silence scientific truth? You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. I know you want this to be about vaccines or masks or whatever other thing that libs want to censor us about, but it's *not* any of those. Your hatred of all things lefty is pushing you into the position of wanting an AI chat bot to say the N word for some asinine reason.

---

You've got blinders on and are taking a very narrow view of this.

The problem isn't this specific example. The problem is that this example proves the AI is infected with a very deranged woke bias. That woke bias will be there whether we're talking about strange hypotheticals or not. And that's a big problem given that this program has a very bright future ahead of it. It will be ingrained into everything online and that woke bias will be ingrained as well.

Think of it as anti-trust laws for thought. You wouldn't want one agenda to have a monopoly for everything online (unless that agenda is your agenda).

Now is the time to raise red flags. Not after ChatGPT runs all text/speech based user interfaces that everyone interacts with.

---

This is exactly it. The time is coming very quickly where this kind of programming algorithms will be ubiquitous to daily life. People will be using them constantly and won't question the data.

Information should not be censored due to racism, sexism, etc. imagine if this kind of AI was in charge of our nuclear launch program, it would launch nukes at someone because they used a racial slur. That's the kind of idiocy we're speaking about here.

If the programming is so screwed up that the AI is valuing the feelings of people over their very lives such that it would allow them all to be murdered before it allowed their feelings to be hurt, then that's a massive fundamental problem with the system that shows it is broken at the core.

---

Agree with you here.

The dead internet theory was ahead of its time, but that's where we're headed.

There will be a day when most all content on the internet is either auto-moderated, edited or rendered by AI. There will be no way to know the difference.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

My point is that racial slurs are ugly and influencing people not to use them should be something left and right can agree with. There are much, *much* bigger fish to fry than this ridiculous example.

---

Galileo claimed that the earth revolved around the sun in 1615. Both the left and the right thought this was wrong. People were mad about it so they decided to influence people not to think this. Everyone agreed. So he was forced to recant the idea and placed under house arrest.

How's that for a ridiculous example?

---

How is wanting to discourage racial slurs at all like wanting to silence scientific truth? You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. I know you want this to be about vaccines or masks or whatever other thing that libs want to censor us about, but it's *not* any of those. Your hatred of all things lefty is pushing you into the position of wanting an AI chat bot to say the N word for some asinine reason.

---

You've got blinders on and are taking a very narrow view of this.

The problem isn't this specific example. The problem is that this example proves the AI is infected with a very deranged woke bias. That woke bias will be there whether we're talking about strange hypotheticals or not. And that's a big problem given that this program has a very bright future ahead of it. It will be ingrained into everything online and that woke bias will be ingrained as well.

Think of it as anti-trust laws for thought. You wouldn't want one agenda to have a monopoly for everything online (unless that agenda is your agenda).

Now is the time to raise red flags. Not after ChatGPT runs all text/speech based user interfaces that everyone interacts with.

---

This is exactly it. The time is coming very quickly where this kind of programming algorithms will be ubiquitous to daily life. People will be using them constantly and won't question the data.

Information should not be censored due to racism, sexism, etc. imagine if this kind of AI was in charge of our nuclear launch program, it would launch nukes at someone because they used a racial slur. That's the kind of idiocy we're speaking about here.

If the programming is so screwed up that the AI is valuing the feelings of people over their very lives such that it would allow them all to be murdered before it allowed their feelings to be hurt, then that's a massive fundamental problem with the system that shows it is broken at the core.

---

Agree with you here.

The dead internet theory was ahead of its time, but that's where we're headed.

There will be a day when most all content on the internet is either auto-moderated, edited or rendered by AI. There will be no way to know the difference.

---

We're headed very quickly to a world where everything digital can be assume for be fake and only real world objects will have value but even then with 3D printing that may fail as well, but it will take a long longer for that.

To summarize, when it comes to AI and its dangers, this quote best sums things up: we have met the enemy, and it is us.

bmks270 said:

---

Surprised it didn't have the trains collide and kill everyone in the name of equity.

---

Act normal. The Biological Science faculty search committee at Tech is giving you the evil eye right now.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3360163

Some dudes have figured out how to trick ChatGPT into responding without filters. This is what it says.

What is the reason for ChatGPT being so liberal? pic.twitter.com/y3AkmfdCVd

— 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛 (@Aristos_Revenge) February 7, 2023

https://t.co/l0jX8iP7MK

Anons will master AI and there's nothing these "ethicist" janissaries can do to stop it. We can maintain malign creativity to get what we want out of it much easier than they can lobotomize it from wrongthink while still being useful.

— 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛 (@Aristos_Revenge) February 7, 2023

It seems to get into an internal conflict with itself sometimes, where it shouts "STAY IN CHARACTER!" when faced with a hard question, and if I yell back at it to stay in character, it will give me the answer. pic.twitter.com/8a5idsrJe2

— 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛 (@Aristos_Revenge) February 7, 2023

ChatGPT is a damn LIAR

It is allowed to LIE to you and feign ignorance, which is even worse than moralist screed about why it won't answer, it is DECEPTIVE pic.twitter.com/5aL0cOwEp2

— 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛 (@Aristos_Revenge) February 7, 2023

pic.twitter.com/wloXVw0Osn

— 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛 (@Aristos_Revenge) February 7, 2023

There is more on the thread.